The role of editorial intervention in ongoing language variation and change in South African and Australian English

(1)

The role of editorial intervention in ongoing

language variation and change in South African

and Australian English

M Law

orcid.org/0000-0001-7525-3553

Thesis accepted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in

Linguistics and Literary Theory at the North-West University

Promoter:

Prof AJ van Rooy

Graduation: July 2019

Student number: 13090658

(2)

This thesis is being submitted to Macquarie University and North-West University in accordance with the Cotutelle agreement dated 17 December 2015.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

(Signed): Date: 31 December 2018

(3)

iii

Abstract and keywords

The role of editorial intervention in written published texts has been noted by a number of researchers in areas of World Englishes as well as language variation and change. The widely held view of these scholars is that editorial intervention is a primarily normative activity in which editors fulfil a gatekeeper function by consciously removing innovative features and limiting variation in the texts they edit. As a result of this view, it is often argued that editorial intervention is an obstacle to the processes of change, and within the context of World Englishes, the progression of varieties towards endonormativity. There is no doubt that this view is partly true: part of editors’ work is to consciously match the text that they edit with usage sanctioned in the norm-providing sources (or overt norms) that their employers/clients require them to use. However, editors’ removal of the features associated with ongoing change must be a matter of degree, since corpus-based investigations of written published texts have shown that features and usage patterns associated with ongoing change do actually occur in texts that have undergone editorial intervention, and that sometimes these types of texts are highly receptive to these features.

This study proceeds from the view that because most written published texts undergo some form of editorial intervention, the language of published written texts, which forms part of the input that language users are exposed to, cannot be solely attributed to the author of the text, and it is therefore necessary to investigate the contributions of editors to these texts. Furthermore, this study argues that editorial work forms an important part of processes of language variation and change, particularly in World Englishes where investigations of editorial intervention in written published texts might provide some information on the acceptability of these features within a variety. Thus, this study focuses on the interaction of overt norms and covert norms in conditioning editors’ acceptability judgements of such features, which may shed light on how varieties progress towards endonormativity.

To do this, this study investigates how editors working in different varieties of English, particularly Australian English and South African English, respond to the presence of a particular linguistic feature associated with ongoing change in written published registers. The feature this study is concerned with is genitive alternation, and the interest of the study is in how editorial work influences the patterns of variation (and potentially change) of this feature across the two varieties investigated.

Three research questions guide this study. The first question is theoretical and explores how broad trends of language change, the different contextual forces of the varieties of English, register effects and editorial practice interact to potentially influence language variation and change. The second question zooms in on editors and editorial work and enquires into the sociolinguistic profiles of editors (providing information on their covert norms) and the norm-providing sources (as a reflection of the overt norm) used by editors of English texts in Australia and South Africa. Against this background, the study then focuses on how editors of English texts in the two varieties respond to the presence of one feature, namely genitive

(4)

iv

alternation. The genitive alternation is selected as the feature to investigate in the current study for several reasons: there is evidence of ongoing change in the use of this feature in present-day English; this change can be linked to broader processes of language change, namely colloquialisation and densification, which are known to play out differentially in different varieties of English and across different written published registers; and some normative advice exists for the feature (reflecting overt norms), but it is not so saliently marked that it would be specifically targeted by editors (providing room for covert norms to condition editorial choices). Furthermore, genitive alternation is a good example of a linguistic variable in the variationist sense, and is known to be conditioned by both language-internal and language-external factors. It can therefore be investigated by drawing on variationist methods and state-of-the-art statistical techniques. The third research question draws together the theoretical and empirical dimensions of the study to reflect on how editorial intervention in different varieties of English and across different registers interacts with broader processes of language change, specific processes of language change in varieties of English, and register effects, to influence different opportunities for and constraints on the processes of dissemination and conventionalisation in a variety’s progression towards endonormativity.

To answer the first research question, the study adopts a usage-based view of language that integrates cognitive and social factors to account for language structure, use and ongoing change in World Englishes. It makes an innovative theoretical contribution by positioning editorial influence as an important mechanism in the processes of variation and change in different written published registers in different varieties of English. To answer the second research question, the study surveys editors of English texts in Australia and South Africa in order to gather information on their sociolinguistic profiles (as a reflection of their covert norms), and the kinds of norm-providing sources that they use to guide their editorial choices (as a reflection of their overt norms). To investigate the actual changes that editors make to the texts they edit and their treatment of genitive constructions across five written published registers, a corpus-based approach is adopted in which a register-differentiated, parallel corpus of unedited texts and their edited counterparts representing each of the two varieties and five written published registers (academic, creative, instructional, popular and reportage) is constructed.

The findings of the empirical investigation show that editors of English texts in Australia and South Africa are mostly older females who are highly educated and, who in sociolinguistic terms, are therefore most likely more conservative language users who prefer standard, prestige forms of the language (as sanctioned in overt norm-providing sources). However, the contrast between the more homogenous linguistic landscape in Australia and the heterogenous linguistic landscape in South Africa is reflected both in editors’ language profiles and choice of norm-providing sources: the Australian editors are all first-language users of the variety and draw on norm-providing sources for Australian English while the South African editors are mostly English–Afrikaans bilinguals who are either first- or second-language users of two sub-varieties in the country, White South African English and Afrikaans English. The Australian editors therefore represent a group of editors for whom the normative environment is homogenous and in which overt norms

(5)

v

are closely aligned to covert norms, while the South African editors represent a group of editors who work in a much more diffuse normative environment and in which there is a high degree of heterogeneity in covert norms and overt norms.

The findings of the corpus-based investigation show the importance of covert norms in influencing editors’ acceptability judgements of features associated with ongoing change in different varieties of English, but demonstrate that this is not simply a matter of a broad, national usage pattern. Instead, the findings demonstrate that stylistically distinct usage patterns of features associated with ongoing change may arise at the level of a variety more broadly, but may also arise in contexts where multiple sub-varieties interact with each other in the same context. Furthermore, these stylistically distinct patterns of features associated with ongoing change are informed by the unique interaction of many factors in different varieties of English, including differing stylistic preferences across sub-varieties, substrate influence, the amount, type and duration of contact among the language users of the different sub-varieties, the differing strength of linguistic factors, the progression of the sub-variety along the stages of the Dynamic Model and the kinds of overt norms available. In other words, the findings show that while overt norms are more saliently represented in editors’ mental representations of language than they are for other language users, editors are also frequently exposed to changing and differing usage patterns through the process of reading and evaluating unedited writing, and as a result they largely accept the distinctive usages of authors. This shows that endonormativity may be achieved at the level of a variety more broadly, as is the case for Australian English, or it may be achieved at the level of individual (but interacting) sub-varieties, as is shown to be the case for South African English.

The study therefore demonstrates how editorial intervention forms part of the processes of ongoing language variation and change in different varieties of English and across different written registers, and how, at least in the case of the feature investigated in this study, editorial intervention helps to accept distinctive stylistic usages of the feature in different varieties of English, legitimising their use and contributing to their further dissemination.

Keywords: editorial intervention, normativity, language variation and change, World Englishes, register studies, genitive alternation, Australian English, South African English, colloquialisation, densification

(6)

(7)

vii

Acknowledgments

I owe the realisation of this thesis to many people located on opposite sides of the Indian Ocean, all of whom have contributed, in one way or another, to making my PhD journey an extraordinary one. There are too many to mention by name, but some I must single out.

It has been a special privilege to have been guided through this study by two of the kindest and most knowledgeable supervisors a PhD candidate could wish for. This thesis would not have been possible without my two principal supervisors, Dr Haidee Kruger and Prof. Bertus van Rooy. Thank you for the countless hours you have spent reading these pages, providing feedback, and patiently listening to and answering my many questions. All remaining errors are my own.

I have also been fortunate enough to have been supervised by Emeritus Prof. Pam Peters, who generously shared her extensive knowledge of World Englishes and the Australian publishing and editing landscape with me.

During my candidature, I was fortunate enough to spend 2017 working on this thesis in the Department of Linguistics at Macquarie University. My thanks go to the all members of staff and PhD candidates in the Department who welcomed me into their fold and whose words of kindness and encouragement are greatly appreciated.

My time at Macquarie University was made possible because I was granted a year’s research leave from my employer, North-West University. I would therefore like to thank Prof. Susan Coetzee Van Rooy and Associate Prof. Gustav Butler for making this possible and also for their interest in the study and encouragement throughout its completion.

I am very grateful to my colleagues at the School of Languages on the North-West University’s Vaal Triangle Campus for the support they have shown me. Special thanks are due to Dr Esté Hefer-Jordaan, Dr Ella Wehrmeyer, Mari-Leigh Pienaar, Wendy Barrow, Karien Redelinghuys, Keabetswe Motlhodi and Marist Partridge, who assumed my work duties during my time in Australia.

Financial assistance for the completion of this thesis was made available through the awarding of an International Macquarie Research Excellence Scholarship (iMQRES) by the Macquarie University Higher Degree Research Office and a bursary by the research focus area Understanding and Processing Language in Complex Settings (UPSET) at the North-West University’s Vaal Triangle Campus.

Thanks are also due to all the editors in Australia and South Africa who completed the questionnaire used in this study and all the editors, authors and contributors who generously supplied the texts used for the corpus constructed in this study. This research would not have been possible without their generosity and willingness to participate, and for this I am extremely grateful.

(8)

viii

My family and friends have been a source of constant support and love, not only for the duration of my candidature but in all areas of my life. Special thanks go to my parents, Gary and Hilary and my sisters, Colleen and Bronwen.

And last, but most certainly not least, to Davide, who has been the greatest cheerleader of all: Thank you for your love and patience, for all the sacrifices you have made to ensure that I had the space and time to complete this thesis and for your never-ending and unfaltering encouragement.

(9)

ix

List of figures

Figure 5.1: Respondents’ age by country ... 129

Figure 5.2: Number of years’ editing experience ... 131

Figure 5.3: Freelance versus in-house employment ... 134

Figure 5.4: Respondents’ conceptualisation of their editorial role ... 137

Figure 5.5: Respondents’ first or home language ... 140

Figure 5.6: Mono-, bi- and multilingualism among the respondents, per sample ... 143

Figure 5.7: Respondents’ strongest editing language ... 146

Figure 5.8: Proportional frequencies of s- and of-genitives in published academic writing across sub-varieties, in edited texts ... 174

Figure 5.9: Proportional frequencies of s- and of-genitives in published creative writing in WSAfE and AusE, in edited texts ... 175

Figure 5.10: Proportional frequencies of s- and of-genitives in published instructional writing across sub-varieties, in edited texts ... 176

Figure 5.11: Proportional frequencies of s- and of-genitives in published popular writing across sub-varieties, in edited texts ... 176

Figure 5.12: Proportional frequencies of s- and of-genitives in reportage across sub-varieties, in edited texts ... 177

Figure 5.13: Conditional inference tree for the proportion of s-genitives, with register and sub-variety as predictors ... 180

Figure 5.14: Conditional inference tree for the proportion of s-genitives, with register, sub-variety and edited status as predictors. ... 184

Figure 5.15: Variable importance plot for unedited writing, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER and AUTHOR GENDER as predictor variables ... 204

Figure 5.16: Variable importance plot for edited writing, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER, EDITOR GENDER, AUTHOR LANGUAGE and EDITOR LANGUAGE as predictor variables. ... 205

Figure 5.17: Variable importance plot for unedited AusE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER and AUTHOR GENDER as predictor variables ... 206

Figure 5.18: Variable importance plot for edited AusE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER, EDITOR GENDER and EDITOR LANGUAGE as predictor variables ... 207

Figure 5.19: Variable importance plot for unedited WSAfE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER and AUTHOR GENDER as predictor variables. ... 208 Figure 5.20: Variable importance plot for edited WSAfE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR

(14)

xiv

SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER, EDITOR GENDER and EDITOR LANGUAGE as predictor variables. ... 209 Figure 5.21: Variable importance plot for unedited AfrE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR

LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER and AUTHOR GENDER as predictor variables. .. 211 Figure 5.22: Variable importance plot for edited AfrE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR

LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER, EDITOR GENDER, and EDITOR LANGUAGE as predictor variables. ... 211 Figure 5.23: Variable importance plot for unedited BSAfE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR

LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER and AUTHOR GENDER as predictor variables. .. 213 Figure 5.24: Variable importance plot for edited BSAfE, with POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR

LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER, EDITOR GENDE and EDITOR LANGUAGE as predictor variables. ... 213 Figure 5.25: Conditional inference tree for AusE for the interaction of the predictor variables

POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER and EDITED STATUS in conditioning genitive alternation ... 221 Figure 5.26: Conditional inference tree for WSAfE for the interaction of the predictor variables

POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER and EDITED STATUS in conditioning genitive alternation ... 224 Figure 5.27: Conditional inference tree for AfrE for the interaction of the predictor variables

POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, POSSESSOR DEFINITENESS, SEMANTIC RELATION, REGISTER, AUTHOR GENDER, EDITOR GENDER and EDITED STATUS in conditioning genitive alternation... 227 Figure 5.28: Results of the conditional inference tree analysis for BSAfE for the interaction of the

predictor variables POSSESSOR ANIMACY, POSSESSOR LENGTH, POSSESSUM LENGTH, FINAL SIBILANCE, SEMANTIC RELATION, EDITOR LANGUAGE and EDITED STATUS with the response variable (with two levels s-genitive and of-genitive)229

(15)

xv

List of tables

Table 3.1: Animacy scale for plotting possessor noun type ... 81

Table 3.2: Distribution of genitives for AusE and AmE (calculated from Ford and Bresnan (2015)). ... 88

Table 3.3: Distribution of genitive constructions across modalities and genres (adapted from Grafmiller (2014, p. 476)). ... 91

Table 3.4: Genitive constructions available in Afrikaans, English, Southern Sotho and Zulu. ... 96

Table 4.1: Categorisation of norm orientations ... 107

Table 4.2: Text and approximate unique author and editor count per register, per sub-variety ... 115

Table 4.3: Word count per register, per sub-variety ... 116

Table 4.4: Representation of editors across registers ... 116

Table 4.5: Language codes used for authors’ and editors’ languages ... 119

Table 4.6: Editorial intervention labels used in the data annotation ... 120

Table 5.1: Respondents’ gender by country ... 130

Table 5.2: Respondents’ highest qualifications ... 131

Table 5.3: Categorisation of qualification areas ... 132

Table 5.4: In-house employment details per country ... 134

Table 5.5: Categorisation of text types ... 135

Table 5.6: Respondents’ experience editing different text types ... 136

Table 5.7: Comparison of first or home language and strongest language: South Africa ... 142

Table 5.8: Percentage of respondents with second, third, fourth and fifth languages, per sample ... 142

Table 5.9: Respondents’ second strongest languages ... 144

Table 5.10: Respondents’ third, fourth and fifth strongest languages ... 145

Table 5.11: Combination of respondents’ first or home, strongest and strongest editing language(s): South Africa ... 147

Table 5.12: Respondents who edit in second, third, fourth and fifth languages ... 147

Table 5.13: Number of responses and number of distinct sources per source type category ... 149

Table 5.14: Number and percentage of respondents per source type category ... 151

Table 5.15: Number of responses per norm orientation for the top five source types: Australia ... 154

Table 5.16: Most frequently selected dictionaries by the Australian respondents ... 155

Table 5.17: Most frequently selected style guides by the Australian respondents ... 156

Table 5.18: Most frequently selected usage guides by the Australian respondents ... 157

Table 5.19: Most frequently selected editing and writing sources by the Australian respondents ... 158

Table 5.20: Most frequently selected language reference works by the Australian respondents ... 159

Table 5.21: Number of responses per norm orientation for the top five source types: South Africa ... 161

Table 5.22: Most frequently selected dictionaries by the South African respondents ... 162

(16)

xvi

Table 5.24: Most frequently selected language reference works by the South African respondents ... 165

Table 5.25: Most frequently selected editing and writing sources by the South African respondents ... 166

Table 5.26: Most frequently selected usage guides by the South African respondents ... 167

Table 5.27: Responses for glossaries, thesauruses, people and various online and print sources ... 168

Table 5.28: Overall proportional frequencies of the s- and of-genitives in the sub-varieties, in edited texts. ... 173

Table 5.29: Normalised frequencies (per 1 000 words) of s- and of-genitives per sub-variety and register, in edited texts ... 179

Table 5.30: Proportional frequencies of s- and of-genitives across variety, register, and unedited and edited texts ... 182

Table 5.31: Normalised frequencies (per 1 000 words) of s- and of-genitives per sub-variety and register, in unedited and edited texts ... 187

Table 5.32: Percentages of the types of editorial changes influencing the frequencies of the s- and of-genitive constructions across registers in AusE ... 190

Table 5.33: Percentages of the types of editorial changes influencing the frequencies of the s- and of-genitive constructions across registers in AfrE ... 192

Table 5.34: Percentages of the types of editorial changes influencing the frequencies of the s- and of-genitive constructions across registers in BSAfE ... 194

Table 5.35: Percentages of the types of editorial changes influencing the frequencies of the s- and of-genitive constructions across registers in WSAfE ... 198

(17)

1

Chapter 1 Introduction, contextualisation and problem statement

1.1 Introduction and rationale

The global spread of English and its diverse roles in societies across the globe have given rise to different varieties of English, which have been widely studied within the World Englishes paradigm since the 1980s. Various influential frameworks and models have been developed to categorise these varieties of English and to describe their functions and development, including Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model and Schneider’s (2003a, 2007) Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Englishes (henceforth PCEs).

In both models, an essential cause of the differences between these varieties is the processes of language change set in motion in the different contexts in which these transplanted varieties of English have developed (Schneider, 2007). Language change comprises two distinct, but equally important processes: innovation, which is the creation of new forms or usage patterns, and propagation, which is the conventionalisation of these forms (Croft, 2000). The notion of norms is crucial for understanding these two processes of change, because “innovation is essentially language use beyond convention, and propagation is essentially the establishment of a new convention” (Croft, 2000, p. 4).

Normativity is also a central concept in the models of the varieties of English proposed by Kachru (1985) and Schneider (2003a, 2007). Kachru (1985) clusters different varieties of English into three circles on the basis of national borders and whether English as used within those borders can be seen as norm-providing, norm-developing or norm-dependent. In Inner Circle countries English is used by native users, and English usage in these countries serves as norms for other countries. Inner Circle countries include the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Outer Circle countries are those countries in which English is used by native users and non-native, second-language users. Such countries are considered to be in the process of developing their own norms, and include Singapore and India. In Expanding Circle countries, English is used as a foreign language and is acquired for the purposes of international communication, such as in China or Brazil. Expanding Circle countries are norm-dependent and rely on the norms of Inner Circle countries to model English usage (Kachru, 1985, p.17). Normativity is just as crucial in Schneider’s (2003a, 2007) Dynamic Model, which, rather than clustering varieties on the basis of speaker status, proposes an underlying developmental process of postcolonial varieties of English in which at least two parties in the colonial contact setting (the settler and the indigenous populations) move through five stages of identity rewriting and linguistic transformation processes. Varieties progress from an exonormative orientation in the early stages of the Dynamic Model to an endonormative orientation in the later stages of the model, ultimately culminating in the emergence of a unified national identity and a new variety of English with new linguistic norms (Schneider, 2003a, 2007). The five stages of the model are Foundation, Exonormative Stabilisation, Nativisation, Endonormative Stabilisation, and Differentiation. Two stages in the model,

(18)

2

namely Exonormative Stabilisation and Endonormative Stabilisation, explicitly address the normative consolidation of PCEs, reflecting a shift in orientation from the external norms of the imperial centre, to the internal norms of the newly forged variety.

Despite the importance of norms in models of varieties of English, very little attention has been given to the processes by which local norms develop within the context of different varieties, particularly in PCEs, particularly in written language, and particularly with regard to the development and influence of local norm-giving authorities, such as writers, teachers, media practitioners, examination bodies, publishing houses and influential opinion leaders (Bamgbose, 1998, p. 4). This thesis is interested in the role of one further type of norm-giving authority: editors of written published texts. While editorial practices in World Englishes have not been widely studied, some researchers have proposed that editorial practices may be viewed as mechanisms that aid the conventionalisation of innovations and changing usage practices in written registers, while simultaneously acting as forces for stability. For example, Kruger and Van Rooy (2017) argue that the editorial processes that all published texts undergo may weed out innovative features and usages, thereby blocking their acceptance, but they may also allow such features into written texts and thus encourage their dissemination. In so doing, editing acts as a mechanism that helps conventionalisation along. Thus editors’ acceptance of innovative features and changing usage practices in a particular variety may be a significant marker of and contributing force to the endonormative stabilisation of the variety, firmly situating editorial practice as an important force in the development of different varieties of English towards endonormativity.

Apart from the work of Kruger (forthcoming), Kruger and Van Rooy (2017), and Van Rooy and Kruger (2016), there is hardly any work on the role of editorial intervention in the processes of ongoing change in different varieties of English. The dearth of research in this regard is the consequence of various theoretical, conceptual and methodological difficulties.

The first difficulty relates to dominant linguistic-theoretical paradigms of the latter half of the twentieth century that abstracted the study of language away from language use, and consequently from the variation that arises in language through use and which drives language change. However, the recent emergence of usage-based theoretical approaches that integrate cognitive and social factors in understanding language, have allowed linguists to re-examine and consolidate the realities of language, making available meaningful systems to explore, describe and explain the variation that arises in the different contexts in which language is used (Van Rooy, 2010).

The second factor relates to the centrality of spoken language in studies of change and the tendency to dismiss written language as its derivative. Consequently, less attention has therefore been afforded to the important role that written language plays in shaping language use and in driving language change. Furthermore, when written language, and in particular published written language, is investigated, there is

(19)

3

very little comprehensive reflection on the unique production circumstances for this form of language. For example, although the potential influence of editorial intervention is often noted by scholars of language variation and change hardly any work has investigated what this influence entails, with most scholars simply framing editorial intervention as a factor that ‘dirties’ language data. As a result, editorial intervention is largely dismissed as a factor that weeds out variation and blocks change, without any real empirical evidence to support this.

The conceptualisation of the editorial role is further complicated by the different contexts in which the varieties of English develop as well as their differential progression through the stages of the Dynamic Model (in which different varieties, at different stages, have varying and changing norm-orientations). Since norm-orientation and the acceptability of local norm-giving authorities are important considerations in the conventionalisation of innovative usage patterns, the question that arises is how editors working with different varieties of English in different contexts respond to the presence of innovative forms or patterns of use. Two additional complicating factors are that different written published registers1_{have been shown}

to be variably receptive to language change (Hundt & Mair, 1999), while editorial intervention has also been shown to vary across registers (Law, 2011, 2014). This raises further questions about the variability of the editorial role across different registers.

The last difficulty relates to the methodological challenges associated with investigating the editorial role in process of language variation and change. The foremost practical challenge is that it is difficult to obtain texts in both their original and edited forms since original forms are not publically available (and in many cases no longer exist). Furthermore, corpora that seek to investigate editorial changes need to be substantive in size: because editors do not change every word in the texts that they edit, large numbers of texts are needed to ensure that a meaningful number of interventions are included.

This study attempts to address the scarcity of research on the role of editorial intervention in processes of variation and change in different varieties of English. Specifically, it engages with usage-based theories of language use and language change, models of World Englishes and register variation in order to develop a theoretical framework within which to explore and explain the role of editorial intervention in the progression of the varieties towards endonormativity. The empirical investigation takes the form of a case study focusing on two varieties of English that have progressed along the stages of the Dynamic Model

1_{In this study, a register is regarded as a variety of language that is defined in terms of its situational characteristics} and communicative purpose (Biber & Conrad, 2009, p. 6). Furthermore, there are usually important linguistic differences across different registers that correspond to the differences in the situational characteristics and communicative purposes of registers (Biber & Conrad, 2013, p. 3). Therefore, the linguistic choices that give rise to the linguistic differences across registers, and consequent variation among them, are highly systematic and functional because they are linked to particular non-linguistic factors such as the addressor’s purpose in communication, the topic, the relationship between the addressor and addressee, the type of readership and the production circumstances (Biber & Conrad, 2009, p. 3). The concept of register is dealt with in more detail in Section 2.5.

(20)

4

differentially, namely Australian English (henceforth AusE) and South African English (henceforth SAfE). The empirical study has two primary components. First the language profiles of and norm-providing sources used by editors in the two countries are investigated in order to analyse the interplay between overt and covert norm orientations. Subsequently, a corpus-based analysis is carried out of the influence of editorial choices on one linguistic feature that is known to currently be undergoing change, namely genitive alternation (that is, the choice between constructions such as the CEO of the company (referred to as the of-genitive) and the company’s CEO (referred to as the s-of-genitive)), across five published written registers in the two varieties. This analysis draws on an innovative corpus of unedited texts and their edited counterparts, in the two varieties.

1.2 Contextualisation

As already discussed in Section 1.1, norms are central to the two processes of language change because in the first a variant feature or usage pattern (that is, one that deviates from the norm) is introduced into the linguistic system (giving rise to variation), and in the second this feature or usage pattern spreads throughout the community, eventually becoming conventionalised and being established as a ‘new’ norm. Labov (1966) and Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog (1968) were the first to show that variation is a normal part of language and language use, but they were also the first to show that it is variation that drives language change and that there is structure to variation (and by implication, to the normative pressures that act on this variation).

Advances in the theoretical understanding of language have given rise to the family of usage-based approaches to investigating language structure, variation and change. These theoretical approaches have highlighted the important role of both cognitive and social factors in language use, which is seen as the central force that shapes language structure, variation and change. For example, the two processes of language change are enabled by distinct mechanisms: the mechanisms for innovation are functional and involve individual psycholinguistic re-mappings of the link between form and function, while the mechanisms that provide for propagation are the cognitively and socially conditioned selection and conventionalisation of innovations by a society of language users (Croft, 2000, p. 166). Thus, norms have many dimensions. In cognitive usage-based linguistics, norms are understood as the cognitive entrenchment of a feature as a result of exposure to it in actual instances of language use. In sociolinguistics, norms operate at the level of the language community, and are regarded as the conventionalised usage patterns within a community of language users. Given the importance of conventionalisation for the establishment of norms and given the centrality of norms for World Englishes, it is important to investigate how cognitive conventionalisation and social conventionalisation interact in the processes of ongoing language change.

Studies of recent language change in English have placed significant emphasis on the development of literacy and the changing, bidirectional ways in which spoken and written language interact (Leech, Hundt,

(21)

5

Mair, & Smith, 2009; Mair, 2006). This interaction is evident in two broad trends of change in English: colloquialisation and densification. Colloquialisation is the narrowing of the stylistic gap between speech and writing, or the shift to a more speech-like style in writing, as a result of a trend towards informality (Leech et al., 2009; Mair, 2006).2_{This is manifested through, for example, an increase in the use of}

contracted verbs and negatives, and first person pronouns in writing (Leech et al., 2009). Densification is the compacting of more information into fewer words in response to the information explosion, and is associated with the development of more dense and complex phrasal (rather than more expanded clausal) discourse styles (Biber & Gray, 2012; Leech et al., 2009; Mair, 2006). Densification can be observed in, among others, increased lexical density and the increasing use of nominalisations in written texts (Leech et al., 2009).

An important point to have emerged in studies of these trends of change in English is that the trends cannot be generalised to the language as a whole (Biber, 1999), precisely because English is used in many different contexts and under vastly different conditions. Register is one crucial context of use, and Biber (2012) argues that patterns of linguistic variation and use are different in spoken and written registers, and that studies of language variation and change should therefore separate the two registers. Researchers have also argued that different written registers display divergent behaviour in terms of their receptivity to the features associated with ongoing change, including innovative usages associated with language contact (Biber & Gray, 2012, 2013; Hundt & Mair, 1999). Biber and Gray (2013), for example, have found differences in the dissemination of features associated with ongoing language change in newswriting, academic prose and popular writing. Hundt and Mair (1999) argue that as a result of this varying openness to broader trends of change, registers can be described as ‘agile’ or ‘uptight’ in relation to their acceptance of innovative forms and usage patterns.

In addition to distinguishing between spoken and written registers, as well as different written registers, researchers have also pointed to differences in trends of change in different varieties of English. Hundt (2007), for example, explores the frequency of the progressive passive in different varieties of English, and states that an analysis and comparison of this feature in different varieties demonstrates that globally used grammatical patterns display different behaviour in local usage settings. Situating this within the World Englishes paradigm, Hundt (2007, p. 288) explicitly concludes that different varieties of English do not necessarily cluster together in their usage of global grammatical structures, and adds that:

2_{Various labels, such as ‘popularisation’ and ‘informalisation’ are often associated with colloquialisation. Leech et} al. (2009, p. 239) explain that in principle there is a difference between informalisation and colloquialisation. Informalisation has to do with informality of style and is related to the absence of distance between a text’s creator and its recipient, something that is strongly associated with speech; while colloquialisation is related to the adoption of speech-like patterns in writing (Leech et al., 2009, p. 239). This study notes the difference between the two terms, but does not draw a sharp distinction between them and treats informalisation and colloquialisation as aspects of the same trend.

(22)

6

different local and stylistic preferences or pressures, substrate transfer influence and learner phenomena in contact varieties, ongoing diachronic change as well as the possibility of parallel (but largely independent) internal developments are some of the factors that are likely to account for the complex patterns of variation we find.

Genitive alternation, is one grammatical feature that is currently known to be undergoing change (and for which there is evidence of variation across registers and varieties of English (see for example, Rosenbach (2014)). This change is demonstrated in the ongoing increase in the use of the s-genitive at the expense of the of-genitive. The increasing use of the s-genitive is ascribed to its extension to non-human possessors in present-day English, but there is less agreement on whether this extension is motivated by linguistic factors or stylistic factors. Explanations related to linguistic factors argue that the extension of the s-genitive could be due to either a loosening of the animacy constraint for particular subsets of nouns lower down on the animacy scale, or to a general spread of the form to inanimate noun possessors (Hinrichs & Szmrecsanyi, 2007). Explanations that invoke stylistic factors argue that the increasing use of the s-genitive with inanimate nouns is due to changing discourse practices (such as the trend towards colloquialisation or densification) (Hinrichs & Szmrecsanyi, 2007).

Cross-varietal investigations reveal that the patterns of genitive alternation are different across varieties of English. For example, Heller, Szmrecsanyi, and Grafmiller (2017b) show that the s-genitive occurs in higher proportions in first-language varieties of English than in second-language varieties and attribute this to a preference for the more transparent and analytic construction in second-language varieties. However, Rosenbach (2017) argues that in second-language varieties, substrate influence might also play a (potentially stronger) role and that this could either favour or disfavour the use of the s-genitive. As already discussed in Section 1.1, the differences between varieties of English result from processes of language change that are uniquely shaped by the different contexts in which varieties have developed, in which the complexity of factors identified by Hundt (2007) play uniquely configured roles. Given the above, the question that arises is: What is the interaction between broader trends of language change in written language, register effects, and specific language change in different varieties of English that are subject to different contextual forces, and consequently different opportunities for and constraints on innovation and shifting usage patterns and dissemination?

Attempting to generalise from this variability, Schneider (2007) proposes the Dynamic Model to account for the development of different varieties of English that share their origins in British colonisation activities. In the model, PCEs emerge as a result of the contact between the settler and indigenous populations involved in the colonisation process. Variation across PCEs is due to both the development of innovative features and usage patterns, and their selection and conventionalisation within the different contexts in which the varieties develop – but also to the different varieties’ responses to broader trends of change.

(23)

7

The Dynamic Model conceptualises the development of PCEs across five consecutive stages, ultimately culminating in a new variety of English with hybrid roots and new linguistic norms (Schneider, 2007). At each of these five stages, four parameters can be observed:

(1) Extralinguistic factors, like historical events and the political situation, result in (2) characteristic identity constructions on the sides of the parties involved. These, in turn, manifest themselves in (3) sociolinguistic determinants of the contact setting (conditions of language contact, language use, and language attitudes), which, consequently, cause specific (4) structural effects to emerge in the form(s) of the language variety/-ies involved. (Schneider, 2007, p. 31)

In the first phase, Foundation, English is brought to a new territory through of group of English settlers who normally come from different regional backgrounds. The contact between these settlers in the new territory results in a levelling off of the different English dialects present through the process of koinéisation, and a relatively homogenous new variety, the settler (STL) strand, emerges (Schneider, 2007). Some toponymic borrowing does occur through contact between the settlers and the indigenous population, which is largely restricted at this stage (Schneider, 2007). While the newly emerged variety stabilises during Phase 2, Exonormative Stabilisation, the settler population views itself as an outpost of Britain and the linguistic orientation at this stage is towards the colonial centre. However, increased contact among the settler and indigenous populations results in the spoken form of the STL stand moving towards a local form of English, with settlers also starting to adopt indigenous words (Schneider, 2007). Within the indigenous population, increased contact with the settler community means that bilingualism starts to spread, marking the emergence of the indigenous strand (IDG strand). This represents the start of structural nativisation, in which one population group shifts to the language of the other, invariably resulting in some transfer of phonology and structure (Schneider, 2007). This process acts as a catalyst for the movement of the variety into Phase 3 of the model, Nativisation.

In Phase 3, the settler and indigenous populations realise that they are both permanent residents, and the cultural and linguistic gap between the two populations starts to narrow (Schneider, 2007). The use of English in important and formal functions places pressure on the indigenous group to accommodate to English, leading to widespread second-language acquisition. The heaviest restructuring of the English language occurs during this stage, mostly in innovations and structural nativisations that spread from the IDG to the STL strand. A new variety that starts to form its own linguistic norms beings to emerge; however, the acceptance of this norm is disputed by some members of the settler community while other STL-strand users accommodate to the features of the local variety. During Phase 4, Endonormative Stabilisation, following several important events the settler population severs ties with Britain. This results in the emergence of a form of unity among the settler and indigenous populations, in which the cultural and linguistic differences between them disappear (Schneider, 2007). A local identity therefore develops, alongside the acceptance of a local linguistic norm in both spoken and formal written usage (which is

(24)

8

codified in dictionaries, style guides and grammars). However, in the early parts of Phase 4 different norm orientations between conservative and innovative settler users persist, giving rise to tensions between the written standard norms of the imperial centre and the new locally codified norms. This tension is usually felt more strongly by educated users, who find themselves having to choose between the new local norm and the external norm. Over time this tension dissipates and the local norm becomes accepted as the standard to aspire to, leading to the endonormative stabilisation of the new variety (Schneider, 2007, p. 50). Having consolidated its national unity and own linguistic norms, the new variety continues to change through the normal processes of language change, and the variety moves into Phase 5 of the model, Differentiation, in which regional and social dialects of the new variety emerge.

Normativity is thus central to the Dynamic Model, because as varieties progress through the various stages, they gradually move from an exonormative orientation to an endonormative orientation in which a new linguistic norm reflective of the local community gains currency within the community and eventually comes to be accepted. In especially the third and fourth stages of the model, competition arises between different norms, including the competition between written standard and spoken vernacular norms, and overt prestige and covert solidarity norms (Schneider, 2007). Competition also arises between two kinds of overt norms in Phase 4: those that reflect the external, metropolitan standard, and those that reflect the local codified norm. These different competing forces raise challenges in deciding when an observed feature of language use is an innovation and when it is simply an error (Bamgbose, 1998), which is particularly salient in the development of the native and non-native varieties of World Englishes, and especially in their movement from Phase 3 of the model into Phase 4.

Van Rooy (2011) argues that errors can be distinguished from conventionalised innovations on the basis of two criteria: grammatical systematicity and acceptability. With regard to the latter, the acceptance of a new feature as a conventionalised innovation is rooted both in its widespread use within the community (or increased communal patterns of usage) and its acceptability by norm-giving authorities in the local community, such as teachers and editors, which implies convergence between overt and covert norm orientations.

Studies of language variation and change in World Englishes tend to downplay the influence of written language in these processes, with most researchers implicitly or explicitly departing from the principle that linguistic change has its origin in spoken language. The work of editors is seen as ‘interfering’ with these natural processes of change (Kruger, forthcoming; Kruger & Van Rooy, 2017). Because editorial work within the media and publishing houses serves a gatekeeper role in enforcing selected usage practices it is viewed as having a conservative influence on the language of written texts (Peters, 2006). Editorial intervention is thus framed as a factor that gets in the way of language change, rather than as a factor that forms part of the process.

(25)

9

However, researchers are increasingly noting the important role of written language in processes of language change more generally, and in varieties of English specifically. For example, Biber and Gray (2011) argue that innovative linguistic usage can emerge out of the communicative demands of written language, suggesting that written language forms an intrinsic part of contemporary processes of language change, and may be both a source of innovations and new usage patterns and an important mechanism in the dissemination and ultimate conventionalisation of these usages. In the context of World Englishes, the production of written texts plays an important role in affirming and propagating the conventionalised status of new features in a variety, which opens up the opportunity for editorial intervention to form part of these processes (Kruger & Van Rooy, 2017).

Cameron (2012) argues that the normative practices of editors should be included in studies of language change, because this forms part of the answer to important questions about the role of prescriptivism in language change. This is a particularly important point for this study, especially in light of Croft’s (2000) assertion that studies of language change must account for the mechanisms that act as forces for change, but also for those mechanisms that act as forces for stability. In this regard, editorial practices that block the acceptance of or remove innovative usages in written texts may be viewed as mechanisms that act as forces for stability. However, as already discussed in Section 1.1, they may also act as forces that allow innovative features into written texts, legitimising their use and facilitating their further dissemination (Kruger & Van Rooy, 2017).

It seems clear that editing may provide important insights into patterns of conventionalisation and normativity in varieties of English. However, most existing studies on editing have focused on delimiting the types of editorial tasks specific to different contexts and have not focused on the actual changes that editors make to texts, nor what the consequences of these changes are. There is therefore very little evidence, in both the fields of editing and World Englishes, for what editors actually do when amending texts and how these changes influence the language of texts. Interpreted within the context of World Englishes and the development of different varieties of English, it is therefore not clear to what extent editorial practices influence the prevalence and dissemination of innovative usages in different registers in the different varieties of English, and whether this intervention acts as a mechanism that inhibits or aids conventionalisation and legitimisation.

It is known from existing research that the nature of editorial work is highly variable, and while some degree of editorial intervention is a given for all published texts, this intervention varies in scope (ranging on a continuum from light copyediting to substantive editing of content, style and structure that sometimes includes rewriting), and is largely determined by the type of text being published and the context of its production (Kruger, 2017; Law, 2011, 2014). Editorial tasks and the dimensions of editorial work are typically classified into two broad categories: copyediting and substantive editing. Copyediting comprises tasks that are done to bring a document into conformance with pre-set rules, including rules related to

(26)

10

spelling, punctuation, syntax and idiom, and good usage, as sanctioned in authoritative sources such as house styles, dictionaries, style manuals and usage guides (Mossop, 2014). Copyediting also ensures consistency in the application of these rules as well as in the treatment of matters such as terminology and the position, numbering and appearance of headings (Mossop, 2014). As such, copyediting is line-by-line, micro-level work that is normative in orientation, with editors enforcing selected usage practices (Peters, 2006).

Substantive editing is much more interventionist than copyediting because it aims to improve the overall scope, level, length, presentation and organisation of a text and is therefore concerned with the communicative success of the text (Butcher, Drake, & Leach, 2006). Although substantive editing does not invoke the kinds of prescriptive rules that form the basis of copyediting, it still has a normative dimension because of the normative expectations associated with register and audience (Kruger & Van Rooy, 2017). For example, stylistic editing, one sub-type of substantive editing, is concerned with ensuring the readability and clarity of a text by tailoring the language to the audience and their use of the text, and smoothing the language to ensure it is suitable to the text type (Mossop, 2014). This may be a point at which editorial intervention invokes covert norms, since it not only forces editors to think about the ways in which people use language but may also be an environment in which editors are more likely to impose their own stylistic and usage preferences. Content editing, another sub-type of substantive editing, is concerned with the coverage of the topic, and may sometimes necessitate additions to the text (Mossop, 2014). In this case the editor is required to write or rewrite sections of text. Thus content editing is also a kind of intervention in which editors’ own (covert) normative preferences and stylistic and usage idiosyncrasies may find their way into texts.

Given the variability of editorial intervention in different contexts and the potential role of editorial intervention in the processes of ongoing change in published written registers and across different varieties of English, two questions arise, which form the impetus for this study:

 First, what kinds of norms do editors invoke and apply in their editorial practice? Here, norms are understood to include both overt norms (the norm-giving authorities that editors use to guide their editorial choices) and covert norms (the communal norms acquired through editors’ personal experiences and interactions, as shaped by their sociolinguistic background and evident in the changes that they actually make to texts).

 Second, what role does editorial intervention play in accelerating or inhibiting language change in the different written registers in different varieties of English, both in terms of features specific to a variety and the more general processes of language change?

As already mentioned in Section 1.1, this study focuses on two varieties of English that offer a meaningful comparison to investigate these questions: AusE and SAfE. AusE represents a variety of English that is

(27)

11

entering Phase 5 of the Dynamic Model and is widely considered to be a classic Inner Circle variety in which the STL strand has prevailed (Schneider, 2007). Furthermore, AusE has achieved endonormative stabilisation, and is accepted as one of the major global reference varieties of English. The variety has been codified in several national dictionaries and its endonormative orientation has been promoted in other sources with the publication of various AusE style guides and usage guides (Delbridge, 1999; Leitner, 2004). The language profiles of AusE editors probably do not differ all that much from the AusE authors that they edit, which suggests that the covert norms of the two groups of language users are in all likelihood closely aligned, and that these norms are also closely aligned to the overt, codified norms of AusE. Furthermore, AusE has been shown to be particularly receptive to the features associated with colloquialisation, and is described as well known for its pervasive and persistent informality (Collins, 2014). In terms of the corpus analysis presented in this study, the s-genitive is the less formal of the two genitive constructions (Grafmiller, 2014), and the inclusion of AusE offers a good opportunity to investigate the extent to which AusE participates in this change and the extent to which the use of this less formal variant enjoys acceptance among editors in a range of written registers known to vary in terms of their formality.

South Africa, on the other hand, presents “a complex sociolinguistic constellation” in which a comparatively high number of distinct, compartmentalised language communities have interacted with each other at different points in time and under varying social circumstances (Schneider, 2007, p. 173), giving rise to a complex internal variation structure with a number of sub-varieties developing in contact with each other – such as the native sub-variety White South African English (henceforth WSAfE) which represents the STL strand, and the indigenised second-language sub-varieties Afrikaans English (henceforth AfrE) and Black South African English (henceforth BSAfE). As a consequence, English as used in South Africa is difficult to classify as an Inner or Outer Circle variety because it qualifies for both categories. In addition, while there is some evidence to suggest that SAfE is slowly moving towards endonormativity, the variety has not enjoyed the same level of codification as AusE and in the absence of clear codified norms for South African usage, the set of overt norms governing the use of English appears to be an exonormative one, with the orientation mostly towards British norms.

The complex sociolinguistic constellation of the different sub-varieties in South Africa also gives rise to complex sociolinguistic profiles for editors of English in the country. Given the importance of English in high functions and the fact that functional bilingualism is a key sociolinguistic feature in South Africa (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2013, 2014), editors of English in the country are usually users of WSAfE or AfrE. Evidence for this can be found in a review of the South African Translators’ Institute’s (SATI) database of English editors, which shows that native users of English constitute approximately a quarter and Afrikaans– English bilinguals just less than half of this group (SATI, 2015). Furthermore, only a handful of this group of editors reports one of the nine official African languages as their first language, while the remaining

(28)

12

editors report a European language as their first language. This means that editors in South Africa do not necessarily have the same linguistic backgrounds (and therefore covert norms) as the authors that they edit, which adds a layer to the already complex notion of normativity. In terms of the feature selected in this study, South Africa offers an interesting case to investigate how the broader trends of change play out in this variety. Since indigenised second-language varieties show a tendency towards formality (Van Rooy, Terblanche, Haase, & Schmied, 2010), and since BSAfE (an indigenised second-language variety) is the most widely-used sub-variety in South Africa, it seems likely that the choice of genitive construction in this country would be towards to more formal of the two constructions.

The selection of the genitive alternation as the grammatical feature investigated in this study is rooted in the fact that there is evidence of ongoing change in this feature, and that it is an example of a grammatical feature whose use is linked to the broader trends of language change, colloquialisation and densification. Furthermore, it is known that the use of the feature is influenced by register, and variability across varieties of English has also been documented. In the two varieties selected (for which genitive alternation has not been widely investigated), the particular sociolinguistic settings are likely to condition the ways in which this feature is used (and treated by editors) in distinct ways. The two varieties therefore each present a different case for the potential interaction between overt and covert norm orientations, which allows for a meaningful comparative variationist investigation of the role of editorial intervention in the processes of ongoing language variation and change in World Englishes.

1.3 Research questions

The above discussion gives rise to the following research questions:

1) How do broad trends of language change, the different contextual forces of the varieties of English, register effects and editorial practice interact to influence language variation and change?

2) How have AusE and SAfE progressed along the stages of the Dynamic Model, and what are the implications of this for editorial work in AusE and SAfE?

2.1) How do the language profiles of AusE and SAfE editors differ and how are these profiles similar or different to the language profiles of the authors that they edit, reflecting similarities and differences in covert norm orientation?

2.2) What overt norm-providing instruments do editors of AusE and SAfE use to guide their editorial choices, and how and why does this differ in each of these two varieties?

2.3) How do editors of AusE and SAfE respond to a feature known to be undergoing language change, namely the genitive alternation, and how are these responses shaped by the interplay between overt and covert norm orientation?

The role of editorial intervention in ongoing language variation and change in South African and Australian English